20 States Challenge $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee in Federal Court

A coalition of twenty U.S. states, led by California and Massachusetts, has filed a major lawsuit in federal court challenging a recent Presidential Proclamation that imposes a drastic $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions. Filed late Friday afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the suit names the Department of Homeland Security, State Department, Department of Labor, and Department of Justice as defendants.

Despite the marketing appeal, The Trump Gold Card is neither a standalone visa nor a guaranteed green card. Instead, it is a paid acceleration mechanism layered on top of existing employment-based immigrant categories, carrying high costs, unclear legal footing, and substantial risk exposure.

Challenging the H-1B Fee's Impact on Public Sector

The lawsuit targets a September 19, 2025 Presidential Proclamation that dramatically altered the H-1B visa program. The plaintiff states allege that the Proclamation—and the federal agencies’ actions implementing it—upended Congress’s carefully balanced statutory framework governing H-1B visas. For decades, that framework has enabled public institutions—including state agencies, universities, schools, hospitals, and research centers—to address critical labor shortages in fields such as healthcare, education, engineering, and scientific research.

According to the complaint, the $100,000 fee was imposed without proper statutory authorization, lacked notice-and-comment rulemaking, and failed to consider its devastating impact on public-sector and nonprofit employers.

The states contend that this fee is orders of magnitude higher than any previously authorized by Congress, effectively rendering the H-1B program inaccessible to state and public employers—particularly those serving rural and underserved communities—in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Separation of Powers.

AuthorityRelief Sought by Plaintiff States

• Declaratory relief holding the $100,000 H-1B fee and implementing policies unlawful and unconstitutional;

• Vacatur of the challenged policy under the Administrative Procedure Act;

• Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring enforcement of the fee; and

• Any additional relief the Court deems just and proper to restore the lawful operation of the H-1B program for state and public employers.

The state coalition’s action is the third major lawsuit challenging the proclamation. It follows two earlier cases, including one filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, Case No. 1:25-cv-03675 (D.D.C., filed October 16, 2025). The Chamber is seeking a preliminary injunction to temporarily bar USCIS from imposing the $100,000 fee while the policy's legality is litigated.

A critical district court hearing on this preliminary injunction is set for December 19, 2025. Global Nurse Force v. Trump Case No. 3:25-cv-08454 (N.D. Ca., filed October 3, 2025) is the other earlier challenge, filed in early October on similar grounds.

Key Impacts for Employers

The legal landscape surrounding the Proclamation is rapidly changing. Employers and foreign nationals must closely monitor developments in the lawsuits, as court orders or subsequent government guidance could introduce new compliance instructions with little to no notice.

ILS is tracking the litigation and related proclamation developments in real time to provide timely, comprehensive counsel.

Disclaimer：This article is based on the latest policy information as of December 15 2025. Given the rapid changes in immigration policies, it is advisable for enterprises to pay close attention to official updates and consult professional immigration lawyers for the latest guidance. Our firm will continue to track policy developments and provide clients with timely and accurate professional services.

---

As Partner and Head of Litigation at ILS, Ted brings over a decade of experience handling complex commercial, employment, and wage-and-hour disputes for businesses. He has successfully represented clients before federal and state courts as well as private arbitration panels, achieving major wins that include multimillion-dollar jury verdicts, high-value settlements, and multiple pre-trial dismissals.

Before joining ILS, Ted represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil rights, constitutional, and employment litigation. He worked alongside a retired Missouri Court of Appeals judge and assisted a U.S. magistrate judge during law school. This dual-sided, trial-to-appeal experience gives him a unique perspective to craft cost-effective, strategic solutions for clients.

Email:  contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949

Siyun specializes in consumer protection and product liability, with a strong record in defeating dispositive motions, managing complex discovery, and conducting depositions in state and federal courts. She represents consumers in high-stakes product liability and warranty cases against major automakers, bringing deep experience with warranty laws, the UCC, the CLRA, and fraud statutes.

She oversees all phases of litigation—from case strategy to trial preparation—executing discovery plans, handling motion practice, and managing negotiations and depositions. Siyun’s detail-oriented, strategic approach delivers strong advocacy and practical results for clients navigating consumer disputes.

Email:  contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949